# C_2018364EN.01001702.xml

| 8.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 364/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 364/17

---

Action brought on 31 July 2018 — Telenet v Commission

(Case T-470/18)

(2018/C 364/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Telenet (Mechelen, Belgium) (represented by: Y. Desmedt and E. Monard, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested act in its entirety; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested act in its entirety; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the full costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the full costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action is directed against Commission Decision C(2018) 3410 final of 25 May 2018, adopted in accordance with Article 7(3) of Directive 2002/21/EC (1), concerning case BE/2018/2073: Wholesale local access provided at a fixed location in Belgium, case BE/2018/2074: Wholesale central access provided at a fixed location for mass-market products in Belgium and case BE/2018/2075: Wholesale TV broadcasting in Belgium.

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 7(4) of Directive 2002/21/EC and abused its discretion by not opening a Phase II investigation.






  — | In this regard, the applicant submits that the Commission expressed multiple concerns with the market definition of the Belgian national regulatory authority. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 7(4) of Directive 2002/21/EC and abused its discretion by not opening a Phase II investigation.

—

In this regard, the applicant submits that the Commission expressed multiple concerns with the market definition of the Belgian national regulatory authority.

| — | The applicant further claims that, in accordance with Article 7(4) of Directive 2002/21/EC, the Commission must initiate a Phase II review in case it has serious doubts with a proposed regulatory measure. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant further claims that, in accordance with Article 7(4) of Directive 2002/21/EC, the Commission must initiate a Phase II review in case it has serious doubts with a proposed regulatory measure.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to state the reasons for its finding that the chosen market definition does not change the regulatory outcome.






  — | In this regard, the applicant submits that the Commission erred in law where it considered that it could decide not to open a Phase II investigation on the ground that the market definition which the Commission considered more appropriate would allegedly lead to the same regulatory outcome as the one being proposed in the draft measure. The appropriate market definitions would necessarily have altered the legal position of the applicant. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to state the reasons for its finding that the chosen market definition does not change the regulatory outcome.

—

In this regard, the applicant submits that the Commission erred in law where it considered that it could decide not to open a Phase II investigation on the ground that the market definition which the Commission considered more appropriate would allegedly lead to the same regulatory outcome as the one being proposed in the draft measure. The appropriate market definitions would necessarily have altered the legal position of the applicant.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to comply with the procedural safeguards of Directive 2002/21/EC.






  — | In this regard, the applicant puts forward that the draft measure that the Belgian national regulatory authority submitted to the Commission contained a market definition that had not been subjected to a public consultation, as required by Articles 6 and 16(6) of Directive 2002/21/EC. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to comply with the procedural safeguards of Directive 2002/21/EC.

—

In this regard, the applicant puts forward that the draft measure that the Belgian national regulatory authority submitted to the Commission contained a market definition that had not been subjected to a public consultation, as required by Articles 6 and 16(6) of Directive 2002/21/EC.

| — | The applicant further claims that the Commission infringed procedural requirements by commenting on a proposal that had not been subjected to a public consultation. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant further claims that the Commission infringed procedural requirements by commenting on a proposal that had not been subjected to a public consultation.

---

(1)  Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33).

---